User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 1:48:29 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not sue the criminal, or his family, who caused the problem? Perhaps filing a lawsuit under eminent domain wasn't the best option? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 1:49:57 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You could try reading the fucking article and realize the "shoplifter" ran away from the wal-mart and broke into this home while displaying a handgun. While the home was occupied by a 9 year old. So he went from shoplifting to burglary of an occupied dwelling while carrying a gun. But he's just a shoplifter, no threat to the community! How exactly do you propose to safely extract armed barricaded felons without using gas or damaging the building? Wait them out like a medieval siege? They can probably last a month or two inside a regular suburban house. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 1:50:03 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You could try reading the fucking article and realize the "shoplifter" ran away from the wal-mart and broke into this home while displaying a handgun. While the home was occupied by a 9 year old. So he went from shoplifting to burglary of an occupied dwelling while carrying a gun. But he's just a shoplifter, no threat to the community! How exactly do you propose to safely extract armed barricaded felons without using gas or damaging the building? Wait them out like a medieval siege? They can probably last a month or two inside a regular suburban house. I don't know about threat to the community (he did tell the kid he didn't want to hurt anyone and let the kid go) but he was a threat to the PD. I agree with your earlier post. They should've done a bit more to make it right by the homeowner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 1:54:25 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I doubt the guys insurance, if he has any, would cover this. I know my ins has disclaimers for acts of war and aggression by gov agencies, or something along those lines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 1:56:58 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd be interested in how he was financially harmed. The situation sucks to be sure and they were most certainly "inconvenienced" but what was the financial harm? The city offered to pay rent and the insurance deductible which leads me to believe that we was fully insured. Yes, this guy seems pissed as would I but also seems like he's looking for a paycheck. Fucked up situation and perhaps the cops could have done better but I wasn't there so it's hard to second guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 1:58:47 PM EST
[#6]
Another reason to build a 12' rock wall around your house.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 2:03:52 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I doubt the guys insurance, if he has any, would cover this. I know my ins has disclaimers for acts of war and aggression by gov agencies, or something along those lines. It is a standard exclusion on homeowners policies. Another is flood. That is why there is such a thing as flood insurance So according to this https://www.insure.com/home-insurance/exclusions.html An HO-3 policy is often called a "special form" because it covers everything except certain perils outlined in the policy. It is the most popular type of policy. The standard HO-3 policy contains these exclusions:
So basically offering to pay the deductible means shit because there is no deductible. He's probably not covered. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 2:05:33 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He broke into the house in question while carrying a gun. While the homeowner's 9 year old was alone inside. You tell me exactly how you would react to an armed burglar breaking into your house while your 9 year old was inside. Once the child escaped would you prefer the police a) Take the scumbag into custody or b) "De-escalate" and leave and go "Well, we'll get him next time, it was just a shoplift." 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 2:09:48 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So if the cops blow up your house and give you nothing in compensation you will be peachy keen with it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 2:13:30 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And this was literally the only way they could take him into custody. After a 19 hour standoff, we can assume negotiation has been attempted repeatedly and failed. Reasonable options are dwindling. Pack up and leave is not a reasonable option when dealing with an armed home invader. Surround the house like the Siege of Damascus and wait until dude gets hungry is not a reasonable option. SWAT teams are not occupying military forces and they do not have the logistics and resources to enter into extended siege campaigns. Shoot the guy through a window or boot the door and have the SWAT team shoot him is reasonable by me, but we're trying not to get sued or criminally charged here, so to accomplish the goal of get turd in handcuffs without anybody dead it basically leaves: Use less lethal devices like gas and standoff devices like robots and armored cars and drive him out of the house. Is there something I'm missing? If you have a better suggestion by all means, I'm sure NTOA would love to hear it. De-escalation is ALL THE RAGE these days at the IACP and CALEA balls, if you've got a good way to get armed felons out of their spider holes without injury or property damage you'll be a rich man. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 2:18:06 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, I wasn't aware it was OK to post about using killdozers to take out cops. 
This issue is one that liberals should be all over. Instead of sucking the cocks of criminals, calling them "justice involved" and such, push for victim funds. People are adversely affected by scumbag criminals every day, and the funds available to compensate them are nearly nonexistent. Mind the gap leaping to your next conclusion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 2:19:02 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And this was literally the only way they could take him into custody. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 2:20:40 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It appears you're the first person to mention using killdozers to take out cops in this thread. Mind the gap leaping to your next conclusion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 2:21:38 PM EST
[#14]
I don't think that anyone reasonable would really object to the things the police had to do, but... The whole question of "Yeah, this one guy? He's gonna bear the cost for this whole deal, 'cos that's the way it works..." ? I have a teeny-tiny problem with that.
Socialized costs should be socialized; this guy's house got destroyed in the name of maintaining law and order, so the community ought to be ponying up his replacement costs. That's only reasonable--Cops had to destroy the house, so be it. I don't understand why the city and the department are so set against paying for this situation. They ought to have a fund specifically set aside, and then use it when these things happen--Cops have to kick in your door, or make a mistake? That's a cost of law enforcement, and just like the rest of it, the city pays. I mean, when you get down to it, the public got the benefit of this guy going to jail. The public ought to pony up the damages. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 2:22:56 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Whose life was in danger? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 2:27:33 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They also stated he fired on PD and that SWAT attempted to enter but thought they heard shots fired. I don't know about threat to the community (he did tell the kid he didn't want to hurt anyone and let the kid go) but he was a threat to the PD. I agree with your earlier post. They should've done a bit more to make it right by the homeowner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 2:27:34 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I’d let my homeowners insurance figure it out. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: So if the cops blow up your house and give you nothing in compensation you will be peachy keen with it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 2:29:58 PM EST
[#18]
did anyone notice at 34 seconds in the video it looks like a mortar round is sticking out of the side of the house, what in the world were they using?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 2:30:12 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It sucks that we have to deal with the costs from these shitbags. They should be forced to work in labor camps until full restitution is made to their victims. Should have had insurance. The police destroyed property to protect life. I am ok with that choice.  Pay it out of the police pension fund? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 2:44:52 PM EST
[#20]
...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 2:48:08 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You aren't following any decision to a logical conclusion, you are making stuff up. First of all, the decision applies to property, not people, so the bystander thing is just GD derp fodder. Second of all, the The subsequent unreasonable decision by the city to not assist the homeowner in rehabilitating the damaged property does not in any way make what the police did unreasonable. If you want to "follow things to the logical conclusion" you should try actually applying logic. The responsibility to make the innocent bystander whole resides squarely with the city. Most municipalities, states, governments are "self insured". The police were executing their duties, I didn't say there was misconduct. But the police, as agents of the city, damaged someone's property in the execution of their duties. I'm exaggerating the circumstances, the burned down shopping mall, to find where the limit is. So as I read your response, we've bookended the issue. Destroying a house is OK with you, but destroying an entire shopping mall is not. So now we can start drawing down closer to the limit. Is destroying HALF a shopping mall ok? A single store? Does it make a difference if it is a strip mall or one of the large multi-story malls? What if it is a business, a single business, vs a dwelling? What if it is a multi-unit apartment complex instead of a house? There is no question the home owner is completely innocent of responsibility in this situation. The perp started the ball rolling, the police were acting to enforce the law. Is driving their cruiser through a house if they spin out during a pursuit not a reasonable expectation the city will repair the damage? Your rage is not allowing you to have a rational discussion about the responsibility of government when they act and affect third parties. And, if you were paying attention, I was commenting directly on the judge's ruling, not the police actions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 2:53:05 PM EST
[#22]
I feel like I say this a lot, but shit like that is why people don't like cops.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 2:54:09 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What else do you suggest? After a 19 hour standoff, we can assume negotiation has been attempted repeatedly and failed. Reasonable options are dwindling. Pack up and leave is not a reasonable option when dealing with an armed home invader. Surround the house like the Siege of Damascus and wait until dude gets hungry is not a reasonable option. SWAT teams are not occupying military forces and they do not have the logistics and resources to enter into extended siege campaigns. Shoot the guy through a window or boot the door and have the SWAT team shoot him is reasonable by me, but we're trying not to get sued or criminally charged here, so to accomplish the goal of get turd in handcuffs without anybody dead it basically leaves: Use less lethal devices like gas and standoff devices like robots and armored cars and drive him out of the house. Is there something I'm missing? If you have a better suggestion by all means, I'm sure NTOA would love to hear it. De-escalation is ALL THE RAGE these days at the IACP and CALEA balls, if you've got a good way to get armed felons out of their spider holes without injury or property damage you'll be a rich man. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 2:56:40 PM EST
[#24]
@00:36.
Is that a rpg or rifle grenade stuck in the wall? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 3:00:22 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bullshit, the city/state pays for everything not the police. By this theory, a police officer would never risk damaging a police vehicle or other equipment, which is overtly not how it works. Quote HistoryQuoted:
The court acknowledged that this may seem "unfair," but when police have to protect the public, they can't be "burdened with the condition" that they compensate whoever is damaged by their actions along the way. By this theory, a police officer would never risk damaging a police vehicle or other equipment, which is overtly not how it works. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 3:01:13 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Take a few deep breaths. The responsibility to make the innocent bystander whole resides squarely with the city. Most municipalities, states, governments are "self insured". The police were executing their duties, I didn't say there was misconduct. But the police, as agents of the city, damaged someone's property in the execution of their duties. I'm exaggerating the circumstances, the burned down shopping mall, to find where the limit is. So as I read your response, we've bookended the issue. Destroying a house is OK with you, but destroying an entire shopping mall is not. So now we can start drawing down closer to the limit. Is destroying HALF a shopping mall ok? A single store? Does it make a difference if it is a strip mall or one of the large multi-story malls? What if it is a business, a single business, vs a dwelling? What if it is a multi-unit apartment complex instead of a house? There is no question the home owner is completely innocent of responsibility in this situation. The perp started the ball rolling, the police were acting to enforce the law. Is driving their cruiser through a house if they spin out during a pursuit not a reasonable expectation the city will repair the damage? Your rage is not allowing you to have a rational discussion about the responsibility of government when they act and affect third parties. And, if you were paying attention, I was commenting directly on the judge's ruling, not the police actions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 3:02:25 PM EST
[#27]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 3:03:48 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I refuse to rewatch that movie because the writers didn’t realize who the good guy was and made it so the bad guy won. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The movie Law Abiding Citizen comes to mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 3:06:13 PM EST
[#29]
1. Just because the cops can trash the place doesn't mean they should. Property damage should be taken into account when planning an entry. Do you really need to send an armored vehicle through the walls? Come on...
2. Yes, they should pay to make it right, at least a reasonable insurance deductible... Or send a couple of maintenance guys out to fix a door. It's not hard. 3. $400,000 seems excessive in the extreme. Feels like I'm not getting the whole story on that one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 3:07:23 PM EST
[#30]
If only we had done a thread back when this happened...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 3:09:28 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What’s with all the cop hating threads? Is it crap on Police day? Wtf 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 3:10:14 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He did try to run over a cop, I would say that he might be a teeny bit of a threat to the community. But I am jaded like that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They also stated he fired on PD and that SWAT attempted to enter but thought they heard shots fired. I don't know about threat to the community (he did tell the kid he didn't want to hurt anyone and let the kid go) but he was a threat to the PD. I agree with your earlier post. They should've done a bit more to make it right by the homeowner. I would love to know what prompted the guy to respond like that to a simple petty theft charge. What was his record like that it caused that. I would imagine whatever it was, since he was out on the streets, adding shoplifting wouldn't have gotten him 100 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 3:19:14 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I did say he fired on one and probably fired several more times. He was definitely a threat to PD. I would love to know what prompted the guy to respond like that to a simple petty theft charge. What was his record like that it caused that. I would imagine whatever it was, since he was out on the streets, adding shoplifting wouldn't have gotten him 100 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 3:19:32 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd be interested in how he was financially harmed. The situation sucks to be sure and they were most certainly "inconvenienced" but what was the financial harm? The city offered to pay rent and the insurance deductible which leads me to believe that we was fully insured. Yes, this guy seems pissed as would I but also seems like he's looking for a paycheck. Fucked up situation and perhaps the cops could have done better but I wasn't there so it's hard to second guess.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 3:24:43 PM EST
[#35]
Most likely there would be no insurance coverage, so that point is moot. A societal institution destroyed property in a societal function, society, the city, should reimburse. Straight forward.
As to eminent domain, they destroyed private property for society's behalf, sounds like a taking to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 3:29:30 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Response seems appropriate For al qaeda compound. In afghanistan In Iraq, if we raided the wrong house and damaged it, the homeowner got a receipt that they could take to the PA office for compensation. Of course the PA office denied most of the claims because of wrong punctuation or some other BS. They made liars of us. After that, if my platoon damaged the wrong house, I payed for the damage out of my own pocket. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 3:29:33 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is super fucked up, both places I have copped at had a risk management department that would come out and survey damage and cut a check for damages we caused to third party property in the course of doing business like kicked in doors or broken windows
They wouldn't pay you if you barricaded in your own house or whatever but if we had to boot some old ladies door cause she fell down or bust into a lockout apartment complex for a DV in progress or something they never gave anyone problems with reimbursement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 3:50:29 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: According to the article, the city offered to pay the homeowner's son -- who was living in the home -- $5,000 to help with his rent and insurance deductible. The city didn't offer to pay the owner of the house, i.e. the father, anything at all for the house that the city destroyed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 3:51:07 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Must have been a super-sized t-shirt heist to justify that level of destruction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 4:18:59 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Even then, if it was the wrong house, .gov pays for the damages. In Iraq, if we raided the wrong house and damaged it, the homeowner got a receipt that they could take to the PA office for compensation. Of course the PA office denied most of the claims because of wrong punctuation or some other BS. They made liars of us. After that, if my platoon damaged the wrong house, I payed for the damage out of my own pocket. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 4:25:07 PM EST
[#41]
Guys, guys. i think we're missing the most important part here. Did they or did they not recover the shirt and belts?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 4:40:05 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Guys, guys. i think we're missing the most important part here. Did they or did they not recover the shirt and belts?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 4:41:26 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are a rare thing in this world: a good man. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 4:54:41 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 46 posts since '14 and yet you find yourself here. I drop in once in a blue moon when I need to look up some info on more serious gun related stuff. Just stumbled on GD, and see it's some quality shitposting here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 4:58:36 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1. Just because the cops can trash the place doesn't mean they should. Property damage should be taken into account when planning an entry. Do you really need to send an armored vehicle through the walls? Come on... 2. Yes, they should pay to make it right, at least a reasonable insurance deductible... Or send a couple of maintenance guys out to fix a door. It's not hard. 3. $400,000 seems excessive in the extreme. Feels like I'm not getting the whole story on that one. But I guess it's ok if we only fuck up our own citizen's property. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 5:02:05 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A good man or unintentional financier of international terrorism? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You are a rare thing in this world: a good man. Wouldn't surprise me if I paid some bad guys at some point. Once spent the night holed up in someones house in ambush position. Later learned the house occupants were the target. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 5:05:15 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I personally paid only about half a dozen times, each less than $100 Wouldn't surprise me if I paid some bad guys at some point. Once pent the night holed up in someones house in ambush position. Later learned the house occupants were the target. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 5:06:48 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can't be burdened with accountability or responsibility for their actions. Things need to change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 5:10:46 PM EST
[#49]
The court acknowledged that this may seem “unfair,” but when police have to protect the public, they can’t be “burdened with the condition” that they compensate whomever is damaged by their actions along the way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 5:16:03 PM EST
[#50]
I don't have a problem with the damage caused during the standoff, just the lack of doing the right thing and covering the costs of the repairs afterwards.
It's like "hey, we can roll in, fuck-up your shit even though you had nothing to do with it, walk away, and the "law" has our back as to covering damage costs....Ha-Ha". It's a wonder the jurisdiction did not come along and condemn the property....Oh wait! 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
